mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 85

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Slur to d2 in A

Slur to end of bar in GE (→FE→EE)
..

Leading the slur to the end of the bar is a characteristic inaccuracy of GE1. Similarly in bar 93.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 85

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

2 slurs in sources

1 slur suggested by the editors
..

The divided slur in the sources is, according to us, a result of an inaccurately drawn extension of the slur in A. Initially, the slurs embraced only the irregular groups on the 4th crotchet in bar 84 and in the 2nd half of bar 85. Chopin then extended the first of the slurs, but he did not drag him to the beginning of the second one. In an analogous situation in bars 92-93, A combined the slurs in an unquestionable way. (Cf. also continuous slurs in bars 83 and 91).

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Corrections in A

b. 87

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Grace note f! in A

Grace note g1 in GE (→FE→EE)
..

It is not quite clear whether the change of pitch of the grace note is a result of Chopin's proofreading in GE1 or of the engraver's distraction. In any case, the fingering written in this place by Chopin in FED proves his acceptance of this version. Cf. the adjacent note as well as the 2nd mov., bar 76. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 87

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

..

In A, there are visible traces of erasures before the grace note, yet it is difficult to say what was being removed. It could have been a different grace note, e1 or g1 (or even two grace notes). However, the very action of performing corrections in this place increases the chances that the grace note changed in GE1 is authentic, since it offers certainty that Chopin would consider different versions of this detail. Corrections were also performed slightly further, before the e1 demisemiquaver and over the stave, where a performance marking was removed.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Chopin's hesitations

b. 87

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

No markings in A & GE2

Dot & slur in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

In GE1 (→FE→EE) the first group of quavers is provided with the same markings as the next: with a staccato dot on the 1st note and a slur. It is certainly a mistake: an error or rather an attempt of revision. The signs were removed in GE2, restoring the text of A, in which the markings appear in the figures spanning at least a tenth.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions